Here’s the full video of the event. I definitely recommend watching it if you have the time, but if not look below for my highlights.

Messaging

One thing that all the speakers agreed on was that the GOP and conservatives generally need to do a better job at conveying their beliefs. Specifically, they need to do so in a way that will not alienate minorities, young people, and women. The speakers emphasized the need for an aspirational, positive message.

As Ben Domenech said (paraphrased), “You can’t just rely on the bad economy to get people to come to you. You must have a narrative.” In Domenech’s view, the number one thing to take away from the 2012 election is that you must run someone who believes in the policies and ideology that he’s espousing and has the ability to articulate them persuasively. Mitt Romney did not fit that bill.

Another aspect of messaging that needs to be fixed is the party’s tendency to embrace “bumper-sticker” arguments. As Artur Davis said, the Romney campaign had great policy ideas (Davis particularly mentioned education), but nobody ever talked about them because they were too busy fitting “you didn’t build that” into their speeches. Conservatives must treat the electorate as adults if they want to win.

Outreach

All the speakers agreed that Republicans must improve their standing among racial minorities, in particular Hispanics and Asian-Americans.

AEI’s Henry Olsen made the excellent point that the GOP’s biggest problem with outreach to these groups is simply that they don’t listen. Instead of listening to these folks and leaders in their communities, the GOP seems content to talk at them. You’ll never get their votes that way.

The speakers seemed to agree that Republicans should be open to comprehensive immigration reform, but not because this would automatically win them Hispanic votes. Rather, it’s a necessary move to have any chance with these voters whatsoever. A failure to do so would allow Democrats to continue to paint conservatives as “anti-immigrant” or “anti-multiculturalism,” which kills Republicans among Hispanics, Asians, and the youth.

Additionally, Artur Davis pointed out that there are some inconsistencies among conservatives regarding immigration. To take just one example, how can a party that claims to be pro-family not prioritize consolidating families in immigration reform?

Policy

By and large, the speakers rejected calls for the GOP to seriously change its policies. As one panelist pointed out, there is already a liberal political party—we don’t need another one.

The policy area that has come under the most scrutiny is the party’s stance on social issues. President Obama successfully rallied his base in large part by focusing on wedge social issues like abortion and gay marriage. But Mitt Romney failed to do anything similar for his base, leading to a false perception that the liberal position on these issues is more popular with the public.

In fact, as Artur Davis mentioned, only 13% of people agree with the Democratic platform on abortion, which is legal abortion anytime, anywhere, anyplace. The Democrats won’t even ban gender-specific abortion, a practice which most Americans find heinous.

Reihan Salam said that what critics of social conservatism don’t realize is that it’s a necessary and central part of the conservative philosophy. It pairs well with the GOP’s economic conservatism because it protects traditional values and societal stability in the face of the inevitable disruption that comes with the free market. Those disruptions are worth it because they increase our wealth and well-being, but those policies must be paired with social conservatism to minimize societal instability.

Bottom line

The panel seemed to agree with Artur Davis’s formulation: The GOP must be a conservative party, but it must be a conservative party that can win moderate voters and that is open to values not held by its base. Davis also left the audience with some reassurance by reminding them about a great truth about the political Left over the last 40 years: Given enough time and imagination, they will always overreach. Conservatives must be ready to step in when that happens.

Discussion: (19 comments)

I think that the big problem is the meaning of the term conservative. If by conservative the GOP means that it supports turning vices into crimes it will keep losing voters as they see the party leadership as hypocrites who are devoid of any principles and worthwhile ideas. If by conservative they mean the principles of life, liberty, and property there is no reason why the GOP can’t be in power again. But that means adopting ideas from libertarians and we all know that the establishment candidates will never go for that.

That said, why shouldn’t the GOP just die as the Federalist and Whig parties did before it? Does the country really need a party that stands for big government programs and the warfare state that is not all that far from the Democratic party, which stands for big government and the welfare state? Perhaps it is time to hear those opposed to the big state and those that favour peace and civil liberties.

What is interesting to note is that when the Democratic Party took it’s “shellacking” in 2010, and the Tea Party loontards were swept in, there was none of this tortured soul searching or even a wink at changing policy by the Dems.

The “conservatives” – who today, are not Conservatives at all anyway, the term was simply appropriated by a rather politically depraved group- are now questioning how they will survive.

No Democrat ever thought that. They stuck to their policy beliefs and stood by them.

It’s nice to see that this panel was not in favor of changing policy positions to try and catch up to the constituency. And while I’d like to say we just needed to articulate the arguments better or explain our position better and not rely on “bumper sticker arguments,” I feel we are dealing with a population that responds to the sound byte. I think this issue will be a tougher nut to crack than just saying “we needed to go into more detailed explanation.” I do agree with the ground up approach though, and wrote about it here http://wp.me/p2MAkx-v specifically with regards to abortion. This particular issue seems to be gaining traction with growing numbers of people believing abortion is wrong, secular and religious alike. The Left will overreach. That much is true. But they did with Obamacare and in 2 more years, the approval numbers on the policy are starting to creep up. That’s the truly insidious part of their strategy–grossly overreach then let everyone warm to the idea over a couple years and then they can codify it. In any event, it will be 4 years of tough conversations for conservatives if we want to make any headway in 2016.

“I do agree with the ground up approach though, and wrote about it here http://wp.me/p2MAkx-v specifically with regards to abortion. This particular issue seems to be gaining traction with growing numbers of people believing abortion is wrong, secular and religious alike.”

In your dreams. And it is the substitution of religion for law is just one thing that has perverted “Conservatism” which has been hijacked by lunatics.

There was a time when John F. Kennedy had to crawl on his belly and promise Protestants he wouldn’t take orders from Rome. Now, some GOP candidates practically PROMISE it.

There ARE some people attempting to restore the intellectual foundation of American Conservatism. I wish them well, because the country needs them.

It’s “conservative” secular humanists that are the dreamers–thinking they can toss out any basis for morality and still expect a government to be restrained by it. But I’m making an argument on a much more pragmatic level–the govt is going to do things religious groups do not like. Waiting until they are in office to take a stand on our side of the issue is too late. The church needs to take its arguments to where people can be convinced. Your JFK example is an apt one–only not for what you think. All it does is give a politician a precedent for saying they believe in one principle but promise to govern without it. What if the candidate’s principle were smaller govt, or lowr taxes and they said those I’m front of the right groups but then promised not to be constrained by that belief? Raises 2 questions for me: did they ever really believe it? And if they did what other principles or beliefs are they willing to discard for political expediency?

Another confused argument. I think you people spend so much time adopting these brittle tautologies, you provide your own bulwarks against logic.

Look: abortion is a religious issue, and there is no point whatsoever in pretending it isn’t. Your conceit is the same as the Church’s: phony moral certitude.

“Your JFK example is an apt one–only not for what you think. All it does is give a politician a precedent for saying they believe in one principle but promise to govern without it.”

And why not? Very simple answer to this hollow complaint, and one the Founders knew all to well. As George Washington told the members of the Touro Synagogue, in America, “each man will sit under his own fig tree.”

No matter how strongly one feels about a religious “morality,” imposing that construct on your fellow citizens is immoral in itself. And inimical to what America stands for. If you haven’t gotten that much down, you don’t know you’re own country.

The article I cited in the The Humanist concedes there is a growing secular pro-life movement. So it can’t be a strictly religious issue or these avowed secularists wouldn’t be starting pro-life organizations. They are appealing to scientific arguments.

At the very least, it’s an issue about which there is still considerable debate, and a logical course would be to stop abortion until a definitive answer is found, rather than continue with something that may end up being murder.

I am glad you brought up George Washington. Though, he does more for my argument than for yours. In his farewell address he said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports” [emphasis mine]. John Adams, too wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The founding fathers may not have all be been Christians, but they were referring to the dominant Christian morality of their time. They certainly weren’t referring to a relativist, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage “morality” of the secular humanists of today.

Secularists, by the way, have already conceded they have no answer for the religion based morality that was prevalent during the founding era. In The Story of Civilization leading secularists Will and Ariel Durant wrote, “Moreover, we shall find it no easy task to mold a natural ethic strong enough to maintain moral restraint and social order without the support of supernatural consolations, hopes, and fears.” In Lessons of History they wrote, “There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion.”

So while we disagree on the abortion issue, and you seem to be at odds with leading secularist thought as well, we should be happy to find common ground in that you agree that JFK’s promise not to let his catholic views inform his governing is license for hypocrisy.

Conservatives, a group to which I suspect you do not belong, don’t like this as a trait in their candidates. Perhaps that is why there were so few registered republicans voting for Romney—hard to see him as the one to repeal Obamacare when he was instrumental in instituting a similar program in MA etc.

The bottom line is that our system of government was built in an atmosphere of a prevalent Judeo-Christian morality. And far from restraining liberty, it has guaranteed it for the largest number of people, more successfully than any other in history.

And, if you like relativism so much, and like abortion so much, vote Democrat. The same morality that is outraged by government theft in the name of social justice/redistribution is the one you’re wanting to discard. But a principled party, one that is truly committed to the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness should not abandon those principles so you can have an R behind your name and still be a jackass.

Many are using natural law arguments that have nothing to do with religion. The argument is that killing is not permitted and that the foetus is a living being. From what I can tell both sides of this issue tend to have significant logical problems with their position and need to find a better way. Of course there are so many absolute extremists on both sides so such an approach is unlikely.

“The article I cited in the The Humanist concedes there is a growing secular pro-life movement.”

Rubbish. There’s no critical mass there and you would have to be blind not to see what’s happening on the ground. Are you aware, after all of the bullying the Bishops did, and complaining they were being “forced” as to health care provisions, that Obama WON the Catholic vote?

If the most ostensibly pro-life constituency in America is ignoring their Bishops (also evidenced by – you should pardon the expression- a 98% penetration rate in the use of birth control methods) how do you come to the conclusion there is a “growing secular pro-life movement?”

Wishful thinking. Its not even on the radar.

Then there are these gems of logic:

“At the very least, it’s an issue about which there is still considerable debate, and a logical course would be to stop abortion until a definitive answer is found, rather than continue with something that may end up being murder.”

Gee- wonder if you would apply that logic to global warming before Manhattan disappears? No? Didn’t think so.

“I am glad you brought up George Washington. Though, he does more for my argument than for yours. In his farewell address he said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports” [emphasis mine]. John Adams, too wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Except your still resting on the conceit that this rests on CHRISTIAN religious principles. Washington said “each man under his OWN fig tree, he didn’t say it was under YOUR fig tree. So you sundered your own argument.

If you read your Jefferson, and learned of his visceral contempt for organized religion, you may learn something of the Founder’s intentions.

” The founding fathers may not have all be been Christians, but they were referring to the dominant Christian morality of their time. They certainly weren’t referring to a relativist, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage “morality” of the secular humanists of today.”

How do you know? The Founders even made sure that any reference to Jesus was DELIBERATELY scrubbed out of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

“Secularists, by the way, have already conceded they have no answer for the religion based morality that was prevalent during the founding era. ”

BS. Centuries before these blood cults were invented, mankind has always striven to provide a basis of law, even well before the Decalogue.

“In The Story of Civilization leading secularists Will and Ariel Durant”

Dead white men, irrelevant, and preaching Western deteminism.

wrote, “Moreover, we shall find it no easy task to mold a natural ethic strong enough to maintain moral restraint and social order without the support of supernatural consolations, hopes, and fears.”

That’s their problem, not mine.

“So while we disagree on the abortion issue, and you seem to be at odds with leading secularist thought as well,”

I am not at odds with secularist thought. You found a website, used it to validate your prejudices and then declared it to be a verity.

“we should be happy to find common ground in that you agree that JFK’s promise not to let his catholic views inform his governing is license for hypocrisy. ”

I didn’t agree to that at all, anymore that I would agree that an Observant Jewish president would have license to ban the consumption of pork because of a Biblical edict. Your argument is rubbish.

“Conservatives, a group to which I suspect you do not belong, don’t like this as a trait in their candidates. Perhaps that is why there were so few registered republicans voting for Romney—hard to see him as the one to repeal Obamacare when he was instrumental in instituting a similar program in MA etc.”

What does this have to do with the subject at hand?

The bottom line is that our system of government was built in an atmosphere of a prevalent Judeo-Christian morality.

Bullying Bishops, JFK crawling on his belly…Wow. Max, who hurt you. You can tell us. Come on. You’re in a safe place.

Nice ad hominem argument there at the end–I’m trying to decide if it’s clever or just desperate to have it not aimed at me.

You’ve called my arguments rubbish but haven’t produced a single shred of evidence to support that, or your argument. Sticks and stones, Max.

Will and Ariel Durant were leading humanists, even awarded the Humanist Pioneer award in 1976. So their problem is kind of your problem–you have, the world has, no viable example of an atheistic culture maintaining a functional level of moral restraint and social order.

you wrote: “Centuries before these blood cults were invented, mankind has always striven to provide a basis of law, even well before the Decalogue.”

So I say show me the successful one.

As far as proving that the dominant morality during the founding era was relativistic and pro-abortion etc. the burden of proof falls to you.

We’ve got the existence of a creator pointed to in our founding documents, and plenty of other literature and letters produced by the FF that point to a belief in a deity.

I’ll certainly grant they weren’t all Christian. Many were deists and some agnostics, and probably some were atheists. But even going back to the Magna Carta as the source for some of our Law, the authors point toward some kind of inviolable source greater than man for rights–otherwise they are a matter of opinion and even secession from GB would have been unjustifiable.

Rossi gave some statistics on the growing secular pro life movement. I don’t have time to hunt them down for you. I think he mentioned at least 3 organizations, one was Secular Pro life.org and one was Pro life for a Reason. I can’t remember the third. But the article pointed to the fact that their membership rolls were growing. Which is what I said–they were growing.

As for Catholics voting for Obama–this is my point. The church needs to do a better job convincing the believers and unbelievers with similar values (ie prolife) to vote according to those beliefs. So far, they’ve failed.

As far as the global warming thing–this is a shallow moral equivalency argument. It’s a straw man by itself, without me making it so. Besides aren’t we already having car manufacturers lower emissions and push for better fuel efficiency–so in many ways we are taking immediate action with them–proportionate with the immediacy of the threat as best it can be determined. If global warming were directly responsible for 3700 deaths in the US each day and 115000 world wide (the number of abortions according to The Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood’s Family Planning Perspectives), then I’m sure you’d see much more focus on the evils of fossil fuels.

You’ve lost the argument here. Partially because I wasn’t looking for an argument to begin with–I was just agreeing with the panel that outreach needs to be done before the polls open. It’s the long hard road of convincing more people every day that conservative values are ultimately better for them. Smaller government, focused on defending the rights outlined in the Declaration and the Constitution etc. But you changed it into this anti-religious screed which it appears you haven’t thought through that well. For me it begs the question, are you a conservative )(social or fiscal issues) or are you a liberal?

“Bullying Bishops, JFK crawling on his belly…Wow. Max, who hurt you. You can tell us. Come on. You’re in a safe place. ”

Uh, dude. Every Archdiocese in the nation practically told their congregants they were going to spend eternity in hell if they voted for Obama. The laity responded by ignoring them. It also contrasts to what JFK had to do, in a nation filled with ignoramuses, most Southern trash. If you can’t see the irony, you don’t have a great deal of intellectual power.

“Nice ad hominem argument there at the end–I’m trying to decide if it’s clever or just desperate to have it not aimed at me.”

What was “ad hominem” about it? You’re a mess of malaprops even in Latin (another attempt to prove credentials that don’t exist, BTW)

“You’ve called my arguments rubbish but haven’t produced a single shred of evidence to support that, or your argument.”

I gave you the evidence. You picked an obscure screed, among perhaps a billion others written that gives you some kind of assurance that there was this “growing” movement among those of us that don’t subscribe to these myths, that were “pro-life.” This IS rubbish. There is not a shred of evidence that this is a growing movement, and it is being promoted much as Evangelicals claim there are hundreds of thousands of Jews converting to Christianity. You’re deluding no one but yourself.

“Will and Ariel Durant were leading humanists, even awarded the Humanist Pioneer award in 1976. So their problem is kind of your problem–you have, the world has, no viable example of an atheistic culture maintaining a functional level of moral restraint and social order.”

Being that the world has been held in the thrall of these pagan beliefs for so many millenia, your statement means nothing.

you wrote: “Centuries before these blood cults were invented, mankind has always striven to provide a basis of law, even well before the Decalogue.”

“”So I say show me the successful one.””

Guess you never heard of the Sumerian Code, or the Code of Hammurabi, huh? You must be one of those who thinks the earth is 6000 years old.

“As far as proving that the dominant morality during the founding era was relativistic and pro-abortion etc. the burden of proof falls to you.”

Abortion was not an issue during Revolutionary times, which goes to show where your intellect lies to even ASK such a question.

“We’ve got the existence of a creator pointed to in our founding documents, and plenty of other literature and letters produced by the FF that point to a belief in a deity.”

Your problem is that it is not YOUR deity. And even so, if you read your Jefferson, one is free to not believe as well as TO believe. That is the point.

“But even going back to the Magna Carta as the source for some of our Law, the authors point toward some kind of inviolable source greater than man for rights–otherwise they are a matter of opinion and even secession from GB would have been unjustifiable.”

Again, a statement wholly decorrelated from reality.

“Rossi gave some statistics on the growing secular pro life movement. I don’t have time to hunt them down for you. I think he mentioned at least 3 organizations, one was Secular Pro life.org and one was Pro life for a Reason.”

Big deal. There is an old New York joke about a famous law firm: “Three Jews and a Fax Machine.” These “organizations” are smaller than my local bird watching clubs.

“As for Catholics voting for Obama–this is my point. The church needs to do a better job convincing the believers and unbelievers with similar values (ie prolife) to vote according to those beliefs. So far, they’ve failed.”

And they will continue to. You lose all moral authority when a man who cleans toilets puts money in the plate, and then finds out his son was getting bonked by preists.

Not at all- you offered the idea that since science didn’t have ALL the answers, perhaps it might be best to err on the side of caution. Oddly, you think this is not wise when ocean levels are rising and we keep experiencing these terrifying meteorological events. It’s the same standard.

” If global warming were directly responsible for 3700 deaths in the US each day and 115000 world wide (the number of abortions according to The Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood’s Family Planning Perspectives), then I’m sure you’d see much more focus on the evils of fossil fuels.”

Again, that’s if YOU call them “deaths.” As I have said, since most fetuses naturally self abort, that means Yahweh would be the greatest abortionist of all. How do you square that.

So ordering a parishioner to vote one way is not the same as convincing them–and less effective, obviously. I’m saying convince. “Southern Trash” way to double down on the name calling–still doesn’t strengthen your argument. This time you did mention Hammurabi and Sumerian Codes, which was a good try, but the prologues and prefaces to both of these codes appealed to their deistic origins so it goes to my point that laws that work depend on an authority higher than the ruler’s. The ad hominem was your attempt to weaken my pro-life argument by pointing to the two abortions the congressman’s ex wife had. And remember you are the one that suggested abortion and gay-marriage were issues during revolutionary times when I said they weren’t you asked how I knew that. At this point, when I present evidence, you’re just saying “Big deal, I heard a joke about that once.” That’s the limit of your argument. Maybe you should just give up. You’re overmatched here. Go read your joke books. Leave the grown up talk to the grownups.

“So ordering a parishioner to vote one way is not the same as convincing them–and less effective, obviously. I’m saying convince.”

Convince? CONVINCE? You haven’t had cranks like Randall Terry, Frank Pavone, various “Family Institutes,” producing endless propaganda on this issue for DECADES without changing public opinion? These morons haven’t shut up for a minute about this since Roe v. Wade passed, and now you’re saying they should present an argument? WTF do you THINK these people have been doing all this time? Forget it. The country is obviously becoming more secular every day, and organized religion has lost its clout, mostly by being an embarrassment to itself.

” “Southern Trash” way to double down on the name calling–still doesn’t strengthen your argument.”

That’s where the morons are, Sir, I didn’t put them there.

This time you did mention Hammurabi and Sumerian Codes, which was a good try, but the prologues and prefaces to both of these codes appealed to their deistic origins so it goes to my point that laws that work depend on an authority higher than the ruler’s.”

They were put up BY the rulers to control the peasants. The history of the Roman Catholic Church should provide an example even you could comprehend.

“The ad hominem was your attempt to weaken my pro-life argument by pointing to the two abortions the congressman’s ex wife had.”

You have no “pro life argument” to make, merely an assertion, which you want to impose on everyone else. The “ad-hominem” was an example of the stunning hypocrisy of these people, from Pastor Haggard to the Archhbishop of Boston.

“And remember you are the one that suggested abortion and gay-marriage were issues during revolutionary times when I said they weren’t you asked how I knew that.”

I never said they were issues, Sir.

” At this point, when I present evidence, you’re just saying “Big deal, I heard a joke about that once.” That’s the limit of your argument.”

You didn’t present any “evidence.” A couple of people and a website don’t constitute a cultural shift. Believe me when I tell you there are more Neo Nazis in this country than there are “pro-life secularists.” This is a ridiculous fabrication of yours designed to comfort your own pathologies.

“Maybe you should just give up. You’re overmatched here. Go read your joke books. Leave the grown up talk to the grownups.”

Here’s Rossi: A recent Gallup poll showed that the number of people in the United States who identify as pro-choice has dropped to its lowest point (41 percent) in recorded history, while those who identify as pro-life have continued with their decade-long rise. In 1995, 33 percent of Americans considered themselves pro-life. Today that number has climbed to 50 percent — with a remarkable 9 percent jump in the last five years.

Again, with the name calling, I’m a joke, southerners are trash, everyone else is a moron. The carbohydrates comment is just incoherent. Does it mean I eat carbs or don’t? I don’t know. Thanks for copping to the ad hominem arguments though. Took you being called out on it, but I’m glad you came around. As for not suggesting there was some other prevalent morality at work during the founding era, you can’t simply pretend not to have said what you did. The words are right up there^ Just a few posts up. Actually, I take that back. You can pretend, and you probably will. Along with all the name calling and profanity (albeit abbreviated). But everyone else can see them, and I like to imagine they are quietly chuckling to themselves with every evidence-supported statement I make cutting large gashes into your angry little rants. I forgive you for all the names you have called me and will call me. But this is my last post on this thread. It’s a shame. I know you’re going to shift your arguments a little, post something that is tangentially related to your postulates I destroyed in the last post and claim I have no answer for them, but the truth is, I’ve grown bored of doing this over and over again. Goodnight.

The purpose of your argument was that there was some kind of nascent “secular pro life movement” for which you produced some rather obscure evidence. Do they exist? No doubt? Do they represent a cultural transition in attitudes? Doubtful.

You then quoted a Gallup poll which includes the GENERAL PUBLIC, not “secularists” but I guess taking a poll of those people might kill your argument, so you introduced something else to deflect from your original point.

I DO hope I’m not going too fast for you.

In fact, parsing the Gallup data- something few here like to do- shows their methodology might be a bit flawed. You see, HOW you ask the question can jimmy the results.

See this Forbes article:

” When asked “In general, do you agree or disagree with the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that established a woman’s right to an abortion?” Quinnipiac trends from 2005 to 2012 show support for Roe v. Wade between 60 to 65 percent. Quinnipiac has also seen stability on the legality issue between 2004 and 2012.

But Gallup data for that same time period comes up differently.

Between 2005 and 2008, Gallup asked “Would you like to see the Supreme Court overturn its 1973 Roe versus Wade decision concerning abortion, or not?” In that span of years it found a majority opposing the overturn of Roe.

But between 2006 and 2008 it found a 14-point drop in respondents who opposed an overturning of Roe, a 5-point increase in those who say it should be overturned and a 6-point increase in the number who had no opinion. (Gallup has not updated the responses since 2008 because it is one of their “occasional abortion trends” as opposed to an annual trend, according to Saad.”

As I see it, most people are complaining about government intrusion into their personal choices, left and right. I’ve laid out a complete ideological re-examination of conservative values and a simple messaging goal at http://JudgeRight.blogspot.com If we are to attract voters to the conservative side, it must be a simple and consistent message and as stated above, communicated by people who believe in it. On the issue of value of life, this is not strictly a religious issue. It is part of our foundation and must remain so. It is the first guarantee in the founding document before liberty and before the pursuit of happiness. Literally everyone in the country has no idea how infected we are by Marx. Until we examine our own Socialist mandates, we are not fit to argue against liberals’ mandates.

“On the issue of value of life, this is not strictly a religious issue. It is part of our foundation and must remain so. It is the first guarantee in the founding document before liberty and before the pursuit of happiness”

Anyone who claims abortion is not a religious issue is deluding himself. Besides, since most fetuses naturally self abort, that would make God the biggest murderer in the universe.